Public option for healthcare
 

I'm curious what people here think about the idea of having a new public option for healthcare created. I'm personally all for it as long as its just an affordable option (which it will be).

So far I've yet to hear a good arguement against it.

Re: Public option for healthcare
 

It's a poor idea for three key reasons:

1. Government intervention has historically raised health care costs, and will continue to do so if the government's role is increased (did you know that the government created today's insurance/HMO/PPO companies?).

2. A single-payer system and/or an insurer of last resort is a flawed idea, as Medicaid and Medicare have both proved to be flawed programs.

3. We have no money left. Our treasuries are depleted.

I can expand upon these three points if necessary, but I can't see this discussion end happily.

Re: Public option for healthcare
 

Bond would you say the current state of US's health care is better then countries that have adopted this system? I don't. So using historic results for something they have not directly tried doesn't hold much water. And it shows that its not a flawed idea.

I'd rather not compare this specific plan to other plans that are not the same thing. The overall model itself has shown to work.

Last numbers I heard, US is the country that pays the absolute most for healthcare per year, and has the 37th best coverage. That's unacceptable. What would you propose we do to fix this system and change the results? (I only bolded because I'm curious about this and don't want it overlooked.)

I think the problem a system that is private-only is that the companies are more built to make a profit off of the healthcare industry. So they will take more steps towards trying to turn a greater profit opposed to trying to care for people's health. Which is the most simplistic problem with this system.

One thing to keep in mind is that healthcare is something that people need. Once again, lets throw in the example of education.. Private schools still exist, and public schools still exist. Just because a public school insures that everybody gets a chance, doesn't mean there won't be a place for private schools. Could you imagine if a country allowed their education system to be completly privately run? High costs for schools at all levels, and if you don't have the money you're just out of luck and have to be put into a world of debt?

Would you really be shocked if their system yielded bad results?

Re: Public option for healthcare
 

Before I reply, I would like to point out one potential issue with this discussion:

Health care reform is a very wide and complex field. To debate something that broadly would be nearly impossible. I would suggest the scope of the discussion be limited.

So, before I answer your many questions, I would first like to explain a little more of my argument, if possible, using my previous three points:

1. Government intervention has historically raised health care costs, and will continue to do so if the government's role is increased (did you know that the government created today's insurance/HMO/PPO companies?).

Allow me to first use a few relevant and important statistical charts:



This chart depicts health care expenditures as percent of GDP and per capita. As you can see health care expenditures have nearly tripled as a percent of GDP since the 1960s, as well as the cost per capita of health care. This begs the question: what has lead to this enormous increase in the cost of health care?



This chart depicts average annual CPI change (%) by component. Once again we see the rise in medical care significantly outpacing the change of all other items. And, again, this begs the question, why?

For the answer to this question, I harkon back to my original point, that the rapid (and recent) rise in health care costs is primarily due to the advent of insurance/HMO/PPO companies, which were mandated by, and heavily regulated, by the government. In fact, the health insurance industry is perhaps the most heavily regulated industry in our country.

For an exact explanation of what HMO/PPO companies are and how they function, I would recommend outside sources, as I don’t want to go into too much detail concerning them. Suffice to say, they are a middle man, between you and your doctor. Middle men naturally raise the price of any good, as they have raised the price of health care.

Let’s consult one more chart, which depicts who is paying for health care costs:



Here again we see a stark contrast from the 1960s to present day. During the 1960s, the majority of health care was paid by out-of-pocket, and a small fraction was paid by the federal government. Present day, only a small fraction is paid by out-of-pocket, and payments by the federal government have quadrupled. I would, again, correlate this back to the rise of the HMO/PPO, as mandated by the federal government.

(These charts are derived from numbers provided by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.)

2. A single-payer system and/or an insurer of last resort is a flawed idea, as Medicaid and Medicare have both proved to be flawed programs.

There are many misconceptions surrounding programs such as Medicaid and Medicare. Let me use an example from Medicaid to explain this. Medicaid is the federal health program for low income families and individuals. Now, many assume that, when an individual enters a hospital and requires immediate surgery that the government pays fully for this procedure, as the individual is covered under Medicaid. This, is not so. The government pays a mere 40 cents on the dollar, and the hospital must pay the remaining 60 cents. The hospital is, in effect, paying for the hospital to perform the procedure. This extra cost, that the hospital must legally incur, is passed on to the hospital’s paying clients (those with private insurance). This, in turn, raises the rates of private insurance. Of specific note, is that private hospitals that are not religiously affiliated will often pass Medicaid customers off to religiously affiliated hospitals, as they know that those hospitals will not turn them down. As I hope you can see, this is a broken system for the hospital, and those who own private insurance. A single-payer / insurer of last resort system would logically function in a similar way, and be equally damaging.

3. We have no money left. Our treasuries are depleted.

This is perhaps the simplest of my three points. In an ideal world, where our government has a surplus of funds, a public option may make sense financially (although number one and two would still be an issue), but this is not the case. Our country has an enormous debt, a devalued currency, and overstretched empire. If there is one thing we simply cannot afford, it is public health care. Perhaps if we had saved more wisely as a country that would not be the case, but, it is not.

Please reference this chart (which shows personal savings as a percent of disposable personal income) to enforce my point:



(Source: Federal Reserve Statistical Release: Flow of Funds Accounts of the United States, Historical Data [1975-200])

Lastly, I should note the majority of my knowledge concerning this subject is derived from an internship that I had last summer at a Top 30 health care system.

--------

I will now try to address a few of your questions.


I don't which one is "better." This seems to be your personal opinion on the matter. I would say they are different, but without evidence to support your claim, it is hard to reply.

Evidence? I would in fact introduce the opposite, reference England's National Health Service, which in 2006 had a deficit of around 500 million pounds.

Source? What was the methodology for these ratings?

Generally speaking, I would advocate a return to less government intervention, when more payments for health care were made out-of-pocket. This would proportionatly decrease the cost that the individual pays for health care, as government intervention in industries inherently raises prices. I do not have a more specific proposal, as I have not given this issue the adequate amount of research it would deserve.

Not entirely sure who the pronoun "their" refers to. If you are referring to the public option, then no, I would not be shocked if it yielded bad results.

Re: Public option for healthcare
 

I don't care much about what system is used, but I'll tell the situation in Holland.

We have had a system of public healthcare for tens of years now. In the last 10 years or so they're slowly privatizing it again. Right now it's sort of an combination of governmental and private.

First of all: everybody has to have a health insurance. At the moment you have to pick a insurance company yourself. Prices, quality, services etc. vary a little, but not much. You have many options, for example a dental insurance.

I pay around €100 a month. I think it's like €90 basis + €10 optional insurances.

Here comes the interesting part: the government finances you, based on how much money you earn. I get almost €60 a month, which is probably around the max, because I'm a poor student.

So effectively I pay €40 a month.

I can go to any hospital, dentist, etc. I want, and give them my insurance information.
I'll have to pay the first €150 of my yearly costs myself, but after that 80%-100% gets paid by my insurance.

I like it. :) It works.

Re: Public option for healthcare
 

I said:
You said:
Wiki says: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_..._United_States
I couldn't tell you about the methodology directly, that'd be something for you to research.

My reply to your first and second points would be the fact that the public option will only be an option. If the quality/prices of private healthcare are better then people can easilly just stick with them or go back. The point of the public option is to keep these companies in check without directly setting more regulations on top of them, to improve the quality of healthcare, and lower the price.

The public option isn't medicare, or medicaid.

As for the third point if there being no money.. I think healthcare is one of those things that government has to have a foot in period. Its not a luxury, its a basic human need. (If it isn't, then take it out of prisons) And as you pointed out, simply adding regulations to the existing companies doesn't work. And giving out govt money to people to pay for it does not solve the problem of quality or change anything for people who have coverage.

I would agree with the idea of the goverment backing out as far as regulations that raise the costs for the existing companies.. however I think that doing that alone won't cause prices to go down or quality to go up. In my opinion the public option needs to be made to help mode the standards for insurance. If the private companies want to offer better services and charge more, then they're free to do that.

Re: Public option for healthcare
 

Actually, the burden of proof is on you to clarify evidence that you used to support your claim.


Other than that, I have very little to say in reply to your post, as you have presented your personal opinion, which is fine, but I cannot offer a rebuttal against a personal opinion.

I would only note that I have presented a historical overview of why healthcare costs are so high, along with statistical charts and graphs to support my view.

I hope that I have presented to you a "good" argument against a public option.

Re: Public option for healthcare
 

I provided a reliable link to you that shows where the numbers came from(a link to a completly neutral online encyclopedia), and quoted the part that shows the source of the numbers. Which is more then you did to support those graphs. If you feel the source of the numbers are unreliable, and weren't suitible for this arguement (or suitable to be posted on wiki), then its your choice to persue that.

With that said, mind posting a link for everyone to see that shows those same graphs in that same context?

I think the base problem with your arguement is that you fail to acknowledge the fact that a public healcare option is different from medicare and medicaid. Since the point of the public healthcare option is to help with the prices for people who CAN (or... shall I say 'should be able to') afford medical insurance and people who do have jobs, along with the elderly and people in poverty. This is a universal system, not something aimed directly at people who can't help themselves to an extent.

And you fail to acknowledge that fact that healthcare is not something that should be ran completly by the private sector, and that its a human need instead of a luxury. You completly ignored my comparision to public schooling. (The last thing you quoted in your second post was the closest you came to acknowledging it, and you completly missed the point making a reply out of context)

Do you honestly think the healthcare field is something that the government shouldn't have a foot in whatsoever?

Re: Public option for healthcare
 

Wait, Wikipedia is completely neutral now? LOL
And I don't think our Public school system is exactly a shining example to base health care on.

Re: Public option for healthcare
 

I would move to end this discussion, as I see it going no where positive. But, at the risk of sounding rude and/or a cop out, I will reply to your last post. I took care to reply to every single one of your sentences, as you criticized me for not doing in the past.

Your position on this matter is not logical. You introduced evidence. I then questioned you as to the methodology of the evidence you presented. The burden is on you, in a logical argument, to explain that methodology. You can refuse to do so, which is fine, but I am just letting you know that is where the burden rests.

Secondly, I am not so sure if I would classify Wikipedia as a "reliable link." Perhaps it is, but this is debatable. I would also note a strong criticism of the methodology used within your very quotation of Wikipedia. See the bold sentence:


The CPI composite information is provided by the Bureau of Labor Statistics archives, found here: http://www.bls.gov/cpi/cpi_dr.htm

The time composite of savings rates was compiled from the "Federal Reserve Statistical Release: Flow of Funds Accounts of the United States, Historical Data [1975-200]" as I already noted in my original post.

The charts were compiled by a professor that I worked with last year. He holds a PhD from Wharton, and teaches at the #2 Risk Management & Insurance school in the country. I consider him a reliable source.

My showcase of medicare and medicaid is to use historical evidence that will infer how a public option would function. While I agree that medicare, medicaid, and a public option are different beasts, they are beasts that have the same mother. The inherent problems of medicare and medicaid as far as reimbursements (reference my hospital example in my second post) will remain, as well as other inherent issues of government intervention in the private sector.

This is the same logic that the government used to create the very HMOs and PPOs that are now blamed for driving up the prices of health care.

Okay.

That is your opinion, which I respect, but you should be aware that there are adversarial opinions.

I did not consider your "public school analogy" to be germane to the discussion of a "Public option for health care." I did not want to divert our discussion to the education system. I acknowledge your comparison.

I answered this question previously:

Re: Public option for healthcare
 

I think our base disagreement is that in your opinion healthcare should be handled by the private setor, and in mine I think that healthcare is something that the government has to have a foot in no matter what because its a basic human need. Also you don't seem to trust that the government can make a change for the better, while I do.

Just because a collection of old programs that are completly different didn't work holds no bearing on on if this program will work or not. All I know is the system as is, is extremely broken and its going to take some major changes to fix it.

I guess my trust lies in the government, and I'm willing to give them a chance to change.. while your trust lies in the corperations. I personally think that it makes more sense to trust people who are pushing for fairness, then trust people who are pushing to make money and line a CEO's pocket. If regulations were lightened up, I wouldn't hold my breath for prices to drop. Though I could see those corperations getting their most profitable years.

Re: Public option for healthcare
 

"Health Care Stories for America"




Three of many more stories.



The health care system is broken if stories like these can happen. Health care is a basic need, and I think that there should at least be a public option that anyone can get.

Re: Public option for healthcare
 

I am by no means orthodox in this area, but I am not surprisingly against public healthcare as the main source of healthcare for Americans, although I do support it as a backstop for those who have limited access. I've also written on this subject more than a couple times due to my experiences with public healthcare and it's mistreatment of my father in law, so I've exhausted most of my details on this matter.

Instead of rehashing ideas listed above, I'll try and simplify a few of my thoughts on this:

1) The current single payer proposal asks healthcare companies to reduce costs associated with healthcare. At the same time the goal is to add a supposed 40 million people on to healthcare benefit plans. IMO this will inevitably lead to a reduction in services or rationing them (basic mathematics). I know that part of the control is intended to help reduce waste and such, but see my comments below.

2) While government can be good at regulating and policing private bodies, it's always been proven to be woefully inadequate at RUNNING anything. Waste, quotas, corruption and politics tend to make decisions instead of professionals (see public education for an example). I've always found it curious that every public societal function that is controlled by the government is continually and unendingly ridiculed, yet the answer to all of this criticism is "make it bigger/throw more money at it".

3) While single payer systems are quite good at general health maintenance, they are HORRIBLE at providing specialist care and often deny service to those who need it (rationing) due to age, current health issues, lifestyle, etc. Manasecret cited several horror stories of American healthcare, and I'm sure there are many more, and I could cite just as many horror stories of people being denied care or dying while waiting for a specialist. There will always be these stories no matter who is in charge, and I don't see them getting any less frequent if the provider of halthcare gets larger and even more topheavy and impersonal.

4) We have to think about the insurance costs and how they are involved in all of this. Malpractice insurance is so high due to lawsuits and exorbinate payouts. Tort reform has to be part of this conversation or else much of our tax money for healthcare will be going into the pockets of lawyers when we think it's going towards service.

5) Before scrapping the American way of providing healthcare, we need to think about how that will affect the world's healthcare. America is currently the leader in creating and providing the highest level of individual healthare in the world. We are the home bases for international pharmacutical companies and when someone wants the best doctor in the world in any one particular area, they come to the US. These pharm companies and doctors created the latest and most innovative techniques, drugs and medical equipment in the world, which is then used by the rest of the world. To essentially castrate the center of medical innovation the world over could have disasterous effects on world health, not just American health.

6) Logistics need to be a part of this discussion. We're not talking about socializing the healthcare of th small country. We're talking about socializing the healthcare of the better part of 400 million people.

I'm not one to say hat the American healthcare system is perfect, it's absolutely not perfect... but nothing is. We keep pushing forward with these radical ideas with no real thought towards unintended consequences all because there are flaws in what we deem should be perfect.

We need to keep what makes American healthcare great for the best of us, and work to improve it for the rest of us.

Most importantly, we can't this become a means of controlling human behavior. Single payer options could quickly become a means for legitimizing intolerance and Big Brother like mandates in the name of the "greater good".

Re: Public option for healthcare
 

The Democratic health care bill appears to not be deficit neutral (as claimed), according to the CBO:

Re: Public option for healthcare
 

I hadn't seen this point before, prof you bring foward a very reasonable arguement.. But once again my base disagreement is in the fact that this should be handled 100% by the private sector.

The point of the public option is for healthcare to be available to anyone, instead of it just being a luxury. While you can talk bad about government run things like public schooling, social security, law enforcement etc.. the point of these things are to make these human needs available to everyone.

A public school is not the best for a student to go to, that's why there's private schools. Law enforcement isn't the best security for everyone, that's why people hire bodygaurds. I don't see any direct complaints from the public about social security.. but I'm sure if they hate it enough they don't have to go through such systems. (but good luck getting private insurance for a reasonable price if you're old and sick)

The point is to give people an OPTION that is not based in making a profit off of you, and that is not trying to deny you care when you really get sick.

If the government programs are so bad, why aren't politicians openly fighting against it. Why isn't anyone trying to get rid of medicare and medicaid? Why isn't anyone trying to get rid of the public schooling system? Of course I know why nobody does that, and yes there reasons for not doing it is reasonable.. But I think healthcare is something that should fit into the same category and shouldn't be handled by a regulated private sector.

I think the public option should be made, and once its there.. when it has some issues we should dow hat we can to try and fix it.

I'd rather it be in this position then where it is now. Where politicians are taking 'donations' from these private health insurance companies to vote with them, even though its clear that they're breaking the system as it is now.

I'm a supporter of capitalism, but the fact is that it doesn't work for everything. These companies mindset is to make as much money as possible, while spending as little money as possible. That's the true reason for all of the stories in manasecret's post.

At this point, I don't think there's any reasonable regulations that can be done on the private healthcare insurance companies without pretty much destorying what makes them profitable in the first place. Like setting regulations in there about renegotiating healthcare or dropping healthcare, or making it manditory to provide it to anyone regardless of age.. or no longer being able to discriminate on the price based on age... like wild things like that.. And even if things like that were set in, they'd either find loopholes, or blame the government directly for all of their problems based on the regulation in an effort to get the regulations lifted.

So why waste our time and money regulating them? We should make them compete with a proper healthcare system to start.

Why shouldn't healthcare be a right instead of a luxury?

Re: Public option for healthcare
 

Where is the disagreement? I never said the private sector should handle 100% of healthcare. In fact, I made a point to say that I think there should still be a backstop to insure that people who need some form of heathcare get it.

And by the way, currently healthcare isn't 100% private sector with Medicare and Medicaid, and what is private is highly conrolled by government regulations (ex. not being able to sell insurance across state lines)

As for the rest of your statement, I've innumerated my feelings regarding many of it in my first post and you've done little to answer my basic challenges. Instead, you've once again ignored my complete thoughts on the subject and replaced them with the fictional argument you'd like me to have so you have something to complain about. It's gotten to the point that it's virtually impossible to have a honest conversation with you about politics or public policy.

You can continue this conversation if you like, but I see no reason to.

Re: Public option for healthcare
 

I'm not argueing with you directly, see the line you quoted? I could have sworn that I said your arguement was "very reasonable". You're telling one side of the story, I'm telling the other. I wouldn't call your arguement reasonable if I disagreed with most of what you had said...

I simply believe that a public option is going to play a key part in healthcare reform. Do I think it will be perfect? No. Do I think that it is a good possibility that it can suffer from a lot of issues that public education, medicare, and medicaid may have? Yup. But, do I think its a better road to go down then adding further regulation to the current healthcare system? Yes.

Historically private sector companies react to government regulations by raising prices, lowering quality, and blaming the government for these changes. I think its time to put accountability back into the hands of private insurance and for the government to create their own program in my opinion.

Re: Public option for healthcare
 

That's not true. There are several types of non-profit health insurance companies, as well as mutual insurance companies, whose object is not profit.

Re: Public option for healthcare
 

Care to give an example of an insurance company that would provide health insurance to anyone regardless of age and medical condition who does not have any concern about profit?

Re: Public option for healthcare
 

Ok, I think the problem we have here is misassociation. When you quote me and then start talking against 100% private healthcare, the reader makes the association between my argument and 100% privately funded healthcare and they believe you are claiming that is my argument. That understood, I think we can continue.

That said, while you've supposedly agreed that there is no perfect option, you've continued to argue against imperfection, i.e. "Care to give an example of an insurance company that would provide health insurance to anyone regardless of age and medical condition who does not have any concern about profit?" At leats thats close enough to an ideal perfect world argument as we're likely to see.

In that vein, my response will be not to argue for private healthcare, which ihas shown provide excellent but not universal healthcare, but against public that has shown to provide horrible but universal healthcare.

Here are some huge problems with universal public options:

1) If a universal public option is available, why would a smaller business provide a private policy at their expense or why would most people, especially young people, spend their own money on insurance if they could afford it when there is a alternative that a) they are already paying for in their taxes or b) is being paid for by rich people if the current funding solutions are to be believed? What would likely happen is that most company plans would disappear and the industry would react and your moderate healthcare plans would disappear, and what would remain are gold plated/luxury options for those who can afford it and high profile corporations who can use those plans as recruitment tools for the best and brightest. So you end up with great healthcare for the wealthy few and then an overcrowded, undermanned ghetto options for "everybody else". This only continues my general theory that progressive social engineering does more to divide the classes than bring them together.

2) Equity. Everyone pays, but what if one person is a marathon runner and eats only organic brocolli, and someone else loves vodka, smokes and twinkies? Is that "fair"? Will healthy eating and weightloss be made legal mandates or a fineable offense? If so, who makes those determinations and what exactly will they be? Will regular checkups become an obligation that is enforceable? Will sin taxes be added to items that are deemed a detriment to our health? This is the problem whe people make the mistake of mixing the "right" of healthare with public funding.

3) Precedent. If we look towards Canadian and European examples for what to expect from universal healthcare, we would ask 70% of our populace to receive care that is vastly inferior to what they are receiving now, so that the 30% (15% of which qualify for public options now) can get care. Why are we abandoning the majority who have what works to accomodate the minority who have nothing, many of whom choose to have nothing? Why can;t we keep what works and then improve what doesn't instead of abandoning everything for a system that we know FAILS.

4) Recourse. Right now if someone wants to sue a doctor for malpractice, they have no issues and if they win they'll receive damages. If healthcare is made public, you would literally have to sue the government. Did you know you can only sue the government if they say you can? In fact, supposedly part of the current bill bans companies from suing the federal government, and prevents the judicial system from hearing cases on the constitutionality the ban. Ooops! They removed the wrong breast! Too bad cancer-lady!

Here is an interesting article about the current Healthcare bill in question, with a link to the source document. I will state ahead of time, I have not fact checked this article, but I'm at work and leaving so I'll research it better later this weekend.

http://www.examiner.com/x-17412-Maco...alth-care-bill

Re: Public option for healthcare
 

That's not what I said.

The problem with this argument is that you keep asking all of these loaded questions.

Re: Public option for healthcare
 

He's not asking loaded questions, he's attempting to redefine your argument to fit his rhetorical liking. This is exactly what I described in above posts and why it is so difficult to have a serious discussion with him.

Anyway, I think a realistic solution to healthcare is not to destroy the current system, but the supplement it. If the current paradigm is as follows:

1) Middle and Upper class with private care
2) Working poor and lower middle class that are uninsured
3) Poor that qualify for public options

We need not trash everything, but instead insert a new solution to the gap in the middle that will not sabotage the private plans that supply excellent care and promote medical advances enjoyed by all.

My proposal is four fold:

1) Create a universal "Catastrophic Care" option to cover people in serious health conditions that require immediate lifesaving or extended life sustaining care (ex. gunshot wounds, car crashes and cancer).

2) Couple this by expanding the health savings plans started/expanded by Pres. Bush (one of the few things he did right domestically) that save pre-tax dollars and can be spent for healthcare tax-free. BUT, if the money is not spent in that year, the money is then taxed and returned to the investor with a small fine. This will encourage people to get yearly check-ups or even elect to get maintenance procedures done (stress tests, etc.). This will also allow people to negotiate with their doctors to get the best rates, because all healthcare providers are horrible payers and doctors will likely give discounts for cash/check/bank card in hand rather than waiting MONTHS or longer for payment through a provider.

3) Tort reform: The cost of malpractice insurance is killing the medical industry and causing excessive tests to be performed and rates to be exorbitant.

4) Let free market principles work FOR you, not against you: a) allow people to shop for insurance across state lines. b) instate tax benefits to pharmaceutical companies that release medicines to generic before their mandate expires c) etc.


I don't believe this option would threaten far superior and "luxury" private plans that pay for nearly everything, but it would also cover the uninsured without deemphasizing personal success/ambition, and inspire people to take better care of themselves. Now I'm sure there are plenty of holes in this plan, but keep in mind, this version is not out of committee yet... and it's only 4 paragraphs long. But I think THIS is more in the correct direction than the nonsense being proposed now, and would FAR less intrusive into private lives, but then again, I think the entire point of the current bill is to social engineer, not insure.

Re: Public option for healthcare
 

I'm not sure what your point is here, are you saying the public option is incapible of doing this? I didn't even mention two of the biggest factors.. price and quality. That quote easily can have imperfections attached to it.

I see where you're coming from with this part, however when I compare this option to how it is now.. I'd prefer it to end as-written by you. I'd rather everone be covered, but wealthy people have special care... Then mostly everyone having screwed up insecure overpriced insurance.

I don't think that is something that you should fear. We're already the most over weight country in the world as is, the most I could see happening is the doctors promoting fitness but not enforcing it. But even when you consider that, the country as-is is still horrible when it comes to health. How dare the government care about people's health!

This is why you look at what they did wrong with their system and learn from their mistakes. It does not change the fact that its a good concept, and that if we handle it properly it has better potential to fix issues that we currently face with our healthcare system.

Very good point. That's a point that I have not heard before, and I'll have to research it when it comes to government programs. However I have heard of claims by medicaid and medicare users. I'm sure that there would be some type of accountability for mistakes, and if there isn't in the version of the bill that's out now, I'm sure that's something that can be added into it.

And lets say in the end, the government cant be sued directly for mistakes with that system. Consider it another reason to go with private insurance! Nobody is forcing people to use the public option.

Re: Public option for healthcare
 

I wasn't the one quoting a one liner out of context to support my arguement, he was. If you're going to give a misleading reply, I'm going to answer it by adding back in the full context of what I said to begin with.

As for your ideas Prof, those are good changes to try. The only problem with it is that it doesn't exactly help with the incentives of the private health care insurance providers. In fact, with that "Catastrophic Care" idea it may give private insurance even MORE incentive to dump people they don't want off onto the government.

And what about people with medical conditions that need a high amount of upkeep on them? Where would you draw the line between someone who is going to have to look for public insurance and someone who is going to have to have to have a stroke first to be helped?

Re: Public option for healthcare
 

I was correcting a factually inaccurate statement you made, not trying to further advance my argument. The latter would be futile at this point.

Re: Public option for healthcare
 

When you remove or misunderstand context, then you can misinterperate a quote.

Let me draw it out more clear for you..

"I'm a supporter of capitalism, but the fact is that it doesn't work for everything. These companies mindset is to make as much money as possible, while spending as little money as possible. That's the true reason for all of the stories in manasecret's post."-TheGame

Which got a reply of:

"That's not true. There are several types of non-profit health insurance companies, as well as mutual insurance companies, whose object is not profit."-Bond

So I'm referring to the stories in manasecret's post, and why these people were denied care. And you reply saying that there are serveral non-profit insurance companies... but... we're kind of missing the link to where these non profit companies have anything to do with what I said. Unless they would cover those people who are in question, with their medical issues and backgrounds.

So to make it fit the ORIGINAL CONTEXT of what you had quoted, I created a "loaded question" to move you back to the point I was argueing in the first place, instead of playing into your little "gotcha" game of pulling a one-liner out of context to make it sound untrue.

Re: Public option for healthcare
 

Game, at this point your logic is so scattered, contradictory and absent minded to me that I can't continue. At one point you seem to agree with my points in theory but then argue against what you had previously agreed with.

You say that private healthcare being available to the rich is ok, but then defend the public option by saying people who don't like it can buy the private care we've already established they can't afford.

When the idea of universal public care is challenged with specific questions and severe issues, you respond with responses that amount to "good point, but they'll fix/avoid/overcome that." with no real explanation how and we should just go with universal care anyway.

When we mention real problems with the current legislation, you just say they'll avoid them when the actual legislation isn't overcoming any of them.

In the end, I have no idea what your ideas on the subject are, beyond being for public options "damn the torpedoes", with all arguments leading to that end regardless of leaps of reality that must be taken to get there. Public healthcare does not default GOOD. There must be real solutions and challenges overcome, not simply a unthinking movement toward an immediate goal.

I can't even say whether or not I agree or disagree with your thoughts on healthcare, because I have no clue what those thoughts are after paragraph after paragraph of attempted discourse. I wish to be enlightened in these conversations, and I leave utterly dumbfounded.:(

Re: Public option for healthcare
 

Ok to clarify this, there's two ways I see private health insurance going if the public option is created.

1) Private insurance will try to compete with the public option by offering better quality at a more reasonable price.
2) Private insurance will not be able to compete with the quality that the public option offers at it's price, so it will move into being something only available to wealthy people.

If option one happens, and private insurance becomes more affordable, and they become more focused on quality and legitamate coverage.. then the health care system is fixed. Even if the public option sucks enough that private is still viable, it will force private insurance to make a change for a good to keep their base.

If option two happens, and private insurance pretty much dies and becomes something that only wealthy people will dish out the money for. Then it just proves that private insurance was broken to begin with. And I'd be the first to say good riddens.

The way I see it, if the public option isn't better then what is offered now.. or if the private companies are willing to make the changes they need to compete.. then people will not switch to it. In the end its an option.. if its not a better option then we have now, then there's no reason to switch.

Ok, I'll be more specific if you be more specific. Please, explain to me why universal coverage didn't work in other countries, and why there is no possible way for the US to handle these problems presented with the public option differently.

"It didn't work there, so its not going to work here" is no more or less of a legit arguement then saying "We can learn from their mistakes".

Re: Public option for healthcare
 

I honestly couldn't reply to your entire post even if I wanted to, and won't at the risk of taking what you say "out of context." Your informal logic is both perplexing and extremely confusing. It is hard to have a serious and honest discussion with you because you are constantly changing the context of the discussion: from general, to specific, and finally to misconstrued when something does not go according to plan. Also, little to no evidence is ever offered, and sound basis is rarely laid for your opinions. Rather, the discussion ends up being more-or-less composed of personal opinions and rants. I suppose this is fine, but even in an opinion-based argument, the burden of proof eventually falls on you. You can't constantly shift that burden back to the other person. That's just unfair.

Re: Public option for healthcare
 

How about you learn not to just reply to one liners? That would really go a long way into helping your replies stay on subject. If you don't understand how to carry a real arguement other then replying to one liners out of context, then I can't help you.

I clearly put into my last post evidence of you quoting a one liner out of context. Honestly I don't know how this thread is going in this direction, and why I'm letting it go there. But if you want to question the validity of my arguements, question the whole point, not just one line that you feel its convienient to reply to.

So with that I'll leave you with another example of you quoting out of context, and if you want to continue with this side discussion I'll put an example in each until you understand why I don't care for your one liner pointless replies. Lets go back to the begining of the thread.

Post #3 in this thread I said:

"One thing to keep in mind is that healthcare is something that people need. Once again, lets throw in the example of education.. Private schools still exist, and public schools still exist. Just because a public school insures that everybody gets a chance, doesn't mean there won't be a place for private schools. Could you imagine if a country allowed their education system to be completly privately run? High costs for schools at all levels, and if you don't have the money you're just out of luck and have to be put into a world of debt?

Would you really be shocked if their system yielded bad results?"-TheGame

Now if you take that all as one point, and not two seperate points, its logical. But how did you reply? See post #4 in this thread.

"Not entirely sure who the pronoun "their" refers to. If you are referring to the public option, then no, I would not be shocked if it yielded bad results."-Bond

Wait, that doesn't make any sense as a reply... does it? Oh wait, that's because you only quoted the question in the second line and ignored the whole point that it was linked to!

I have many more examples of you doing this over the course of the whole thread. If you chose to continue to argue that your replies are in-context.

Re: Public option for healthcare
 

Game, do you realize you just proved his point? We've asked you to provide real ideas and evidence for your opinions, and you've responded by changing the argument to one of whether or not your taking people out of context, which you just did. You criticize for us responding to sentences, when you skip vast parts of our posts and then continue to ignore the points held therein, and then ADD ideas to our posts so you have something to argue with.

I really struggled with the idea of posting this, but at this point I see no more articulate or appropriate response to this thread:

Re: Public option for healthcare
 

I can't watch youtube at work, but I'll check when I'm at home.

And no, I didn't prove his point, I replied to the whole point of his post. As for your post, I'm trying to get away from this whole 'arguement analysis' thing that you're trying to push the thread into, so I replied to the issues you said that you are confused about.

Re: Public option for healthcare
 

So if by "getting away from argument analysis" you mean reinterpreting what has been written to fit your argument, changing the argument when it fits your needs and ignoring inconvenient evidence and logical thought, then congratulations, you've succeeded... in utterly destroying what most rational people consider discourse.

You have to realize what you are avoiding is called the "Socratic method" and it is what all real public discourse is based on.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_method

I've come the the conclusion having a reasonable conversation with you on political or social issues is impossible. In future political/cultural threads, I'm simply going to ignore you.

Re: Public option for healthcare
 

http://www.infoplease.com/world/statistics/obesity.html

We are actually the 9th fattest country. What would be more interesting to look at is annual deaths from conditions like Diabetes and Heart Disease. You could make the case that this country suffers from a ton of deaths from weight disorders:
http://www.the-eggman.com/writings/death_stats.html
Major Cardiovasular Diseases being the number 1 cause of death and diabetes being the number 4 cause.

Again, though, these statistics would need to be weighed against other country's statistics.

I do believe a moral issue would arise (should the public have to pay for the quadruple bypass of someone who chose their lifestyle?). Besides pointing out that you neglected to rebuttal the moral premise of 'the exploitative unhealthy body' in social health care that Prof S made, I ask; how could doctors or the government enforce exercise? I ask this question not with debate in mind but simply to suggest public health care or not, the weight epidemic will continue to be an epidemic.

Edit: I do also want to clarify that it's not so much an "epidemic" as a social reaction to our lifestyles and diets. The term epidemic does not do the complicated problem that obesity is justice. Furthermore, the BMI scale used to determine obesity is flawed and that is (IMO) a factor in the inflated obesity statistics. But that really is irrelevant in this discussion...I just didn't want anyone to think I felt a particular way about the way people weigh. :D

Re: Public option for healthcare
 

Percentage wise, are 9th. But look at the countries that are 1-8...

The population is 10,000 people in Nauru, 155,000 in Micronesia, 20,000 in Cook islands, 112,000 in Tonga, a whopping 1,398 in Niue, 188,000 in Samoa, 21,000 in Palau, and last but not least, 2.7 million in Kuwait.

And there's 300,000,000 (or 300 million) in the united states.

So you're right, we're not the fattest country percentage wise, but we're the home to the most fat people. And we're worse percentage wise then any compareable free western countries. :D

-EDIT-

I think I may as well reply to the other half of your post too. The government would not have to enforce excersize any more then private health insurance would. Since the public option would not be manditory. It'd be subject to its own premium, and not some direct tax like social security is. I don't see how a reasonable conclusion could be drawn that they would force people to stay in shape. (I could imagine them supporting it by offering some type of discount, or doing different things to help people get into shape since that'd help with the costs of the program.. but actually making it illegal to be unhealthy? Yeah right.)

As for your thoughts on BMI, I agree completly, its very out dated. Everybody is different.

Re: Public option for healthcare
 

Haha ok.. that's your choice. What I was chosing not to respond to, however, was pointles rederick that wouldn't have led to any meaningful discussion. Lets go back and look at the rest of the post that I was refering to.

My untyped responce to that would be something along the lines of "Ok and...?". I'm not argueing against something I previously agreed with, and I already disproved that when you brought up your so-called examples of this.

Once again, nothing meaningful can come from this quote.. My reply to this at most would be: "'It didn't work there, so its not going to work here' is no more or less of a legit arguement then saying 'We can learn from their mistakes.'" Which I said before.

You're discussing in theory why you believe it won't work, which I haven't really challenged other then discussing in theory why it can work.

Once again another thing that I addressed in the last post I made but didn't quote directly. But I'll just quote myself for the sake of not having you scroll back up again. :)

"Ok to clarify this, there's two ways I see private health insurance going if the public option is created.

1) Private insurance will try to compete with the public option by offering better quality at a more reasonable price.
2) Private insurance will not be able to compete with the quality that the public option offers at it's price, so it will move into being something only available to wealthy people.

If option one happens, and private insurance becomes more affordable, and they become more focused on quality and legitamate coverage.. then the health care system is fixed. Even if the public option sucks enough that private is still viable, it will force private insurance to make a change for a good to keep their base.

If option two happens, and private insurance pretty much dies and becomes something that only wealthy people will dish out the money for. Then it just proves that private insurance was broken to begin with. And I'd be the first to say good riddens.

The way I see it, if the public option isn't better then what is offered now.. or if the private companies are willing to make the changes they need to compete.. then people will not switch to it. In the end its an option.. if its not a better option then we have now, then there's no reason to switch."

In my opininon its win-win, if its relitively bad compared to what private insurance is willing to offer, it will only be for extreme cases that private inurance refuses to touch. But, if private insurance doesn't get their act together enough to compete, then it will become something bigger and private insurance will likely be pushed into something that the wealthy use only.

Re: Public option for healthcare
 

I'm going to try a new tactic, since nothing else has been effective.

Who pays for the public option?

You do know that the premiums paid by citizens who choose to opt-in will not be enough to cover the entire cost of the program, correct?

Do you believe a public option would truly be deficit-neutral as President Obama claims it would be? Reference this article from the WSJ citing the CBO's (which is non-partisan) findings:

Re: Public option for healthcare
 

Game, I already addressed the illogical nature of your points one and two multiple time in this thread. Re-posting old arguments that we've already answered does not make our responses not exist.

It's not my or Bond's fault if you refuse to see them, or answer "Haha, Ok..." and then continue with your nonsensical argument ignoring the ideas and evidence placed in front of you. You are oblivious and I think perhaps have some kind of pathological disorder.

Re: Public option for healthcare
 

Nah I just think you're getting old and can't accept that ideas other then yours work. And you don't seem to understand that I'm not in direct opposition to your concepts and ideas. You refuse to acknowlege that when I have an opinion supporting the public option that you disagree with, that I'm not using that idea as a direct arguement to what you have said. You don't seem to understand that I'm the only one here being open minded, and you are the only one being completly closed minded. You don't understand that you have no basis for bashing the logic of my posts and you have yet to present a valid example that shows otherwise.

And lastly, you don't understand that this whole discussion is about different concepts and ideas about how to fix healthcare, and that its based 100% off of opinion.

So yeah, if you feel like I ignored any of your points against private insurance feel free to bring it back up. But I think I've noted very clearly the things I agree with and disagree with. For opinions and facts that I do agree with, I usually don't waste as much time touching on.

Re: Public option for healthcare
 

Ok

Initially it will not be enough to cover the costs, you're right. Tax dollars will give birth to this program.

If it becomes the standard type of healthcare for the country and private insurance is pushed into being something for the wealthy.. then it will eventually get to the point where it pays for itself. Though it will pay for itself without pushing for making a profit, and without dealing with as much upper management as private health insurance has. Which will keep the costs at a lower then average rate (in theory).

Now, if it fails to become the standard, and private health insurance companies find a way to keep their price and quality comparable.. then the public option will be pushed into a corner and would be like Prof S's "Catastrophic Care" which will only deal with cases private insurance reasonably would not want to handle. If this happens, tax dollars will continue to pay for it, but it would still address issues that people have with the healthcare system as-is.

I would not mind either result.

The biggest fear I have about the public option, however, is that the governemnt will not play fair with it and continue to push private health insurance into failure by directly making changes in laws that make it impossible for them to compete. As long as the public option remains an OPTION, its win win.

As you (and prof) mentioned earlier in the thread, loosening up regulations on private health insurance would do some good. However I don't feel that it would help without the public option playing some role in it. My problem with a "Catastrophic Care" type thing is that there's no potential for it to pay for itself whatsoever. If the public option morphs into that, we can at lest say we tried to save government money.

That would depend completly on how sucsessfull the program is as I stated above. Of course to start, it will not be deficit-neutral. Anyone with common sense knows that it will take money to get this thing rolling. As for the projection in the article, that would be unfortunate, but I think that it would be reasonable. It doesn't specify how much per year it would be exactly, because the truth is nobody knows. But it's a safe assumption that it will start off high then lower over time... but it depends on too many factors.